REP GREDC 006 2016/06/02 (2014-2016)

Home

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE: June 2, 2016 Re: Comm. No. 890/Bill No. 211 PLACE: Council Chambers Hilo, Hawaii TIME: 9:02 a.m. Council Chair and Members Hawaii County Council Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Your Committee on Governmental Relations and Economic Development, to which was referred Bill 211, reports as follows: Bill 211, transmitted by Council Member Aaron S.Y. Chung via Comm. 890 dated May 16, 2016, amends Article VI, Chapter 2, Section 6-2.2, Chapter 3, Section 6-3.2, Chapter 4, Section 6-4.2, Chapter 5, Section 6-5.2, Chapter 6, Section 6-6.2, Chapter 7, Section 6-7.2, Chapter 8, Section 6-8.2, and Chapter 10, Section 6-10.3, and Article XUL Section 13-8 of the Hawaii County Charter (2014), relating to terms of office for department heads in the executive branch for those agencies under the managing director. The bill establishes a term of two years for department heads, would be eligible for reappointment at end of term by the Mayor, subject to confirmation by the Council. Mr. Chung expressed that he was not wedded to this idea but based on things he's been hearing over the past months relating to accountability, he thinks this is not a bad idea. He explained that the new council members that werejust voted in didn't have a chance to weigh in on department heads. In the past when the Mayor and council members served four-year terms, although staggered, every council member at some point would have a chance to weigh in on a department head. It is not the situation now since council members serve two-year terms. He said the council talked about two-year verses four-year terms and the need for accountability and responsiveness; further stating if it's true for council members, it should be true for department heads as well. He timed this in such a way where it's really meant as no criticism toward this administration or past administrations. It's a systemic problem that he recognized because of the charter changes over the years. He recognized how good this administration has worked with everyone. The only plausible reason that he could see for this not being a good thing, is that we might not be able to attract the best candidates because they would prefer four years. He also said that a lot of times we don't have enough time to vet the appointees. And that they have no probationary period. All other county employees have to go through some kind of probation so why can't department beads go through a probationary period. He said we don't have to move on this now but thinks it's an ideal time. Ms. Wille, Mr. Kanuha, Ms. Poindexter, and Mr. Paleka all spoke in support of this measure. Ms. Eoff said at first she had mixed opinions but was leaning towards supporting this. GREDC Rept. No. 6